Relying on Meaning, Not on Words
Continuing straight from the catalogue of names, the Buddha turns to the deeper mistake behind why so many beings fail to recognize them all as his own: taking speech itself to be identical with the meaning it conveys, as though nothing at all existed beyond the words on the page. The Buddha corrects this directly — every dharma is apart from written words entirely — and yet immediately faces the obvious objection: if no buddha or bodhisattva ever speaks so much as a single word, how does teaching happen at all, and what becomes of the entire system of Buddhist practice? The answer turns on a distinction between depending on words and depending on their meaning, illustrated by a parable this sūtra returns to more than once: a finger pointing at the moon, and the fool who stares only at the finger.
Neither Speaking Nor Withholding Speech
不知如來名號差，別，如因陀羅釋迦、不蘭陀羅。不解自通，會歸終極。於一切法，隨說計著。大慧！彼諸癡人，作如是言：『義如言說，義說無異。所以者何？謂義無身故，言說之外，更無餘義，惟止言說。』大慧！彼惡燒智，不知言說自性，不知言說生滅，義不生滅。大慧！一切言說，墮於文字，義則不墮。離性非性故，無受生，亦無身故。大慧！如來不說墮文字法，文字有無不可得故，除不墮文字。大慧！若有說言，如來說墮文字法者，此則妄說。法離文字故。是故，大慧！我等諸佛及諸菩薩，不說一字、不答一字。所以者何？法離文字故。非不饒益義說。言說者，眾生妄想故。大慧！若不說一切法者，教法則壞。教法壞者，則無諸佛、菩薩、緣覺、聲聞。若無者，誰說為誰？是故，大慧！菩薩摩訶薩，莫著言說，隨宜方便，廣說經法。以眾生悕望煩惱不一故，我及諸佛，為彼種種異解眾生而說諸法，令離心、意、意識故，不為得自覺聖智處。
Not knowing the Tathāgata's manifold names to be different names for the very same thing — the way Indra, Śakra, and Purandara are — nor understanding my own true realization, gathered together into a single ultimate point, [these ignorant beings] become attached, with respect to every dharma, to whatever happens to be said about it. Mahāmati, such foolish people say things like this: "meaning is exactly what speech says; there is no difference between what is meant and what is spoken." Why do they say this? Because they hold that meaning has no substance of its own apart from speech — that beyond speech there is no further meaning at all, and that speech alone is where it ends. Mahāmati, their wisdom has been scorched by their own evil views: they fail to understand speech's own-nature, and fail to understand that, while speech itself arises and ceases, the meaning it points toward does not arise or cease at all. Mahāmati, every kind of speech falls within the domain of written words, but meaning itself does not fall there. Because meaning is apart from both a fixed nature and its absence, it undergoes no birth, and has no substantial body of its own either. Mahāmati, the Tathāgata does not teach any dharma that falls within the domain of written words, since the presence or absence of written words themselves can never ultimately be apprehended — apart, that is, from what does not fall within that domain at all. Mahāmati, should anyone claim that the Tathāgata teaches some dharma falling within the domain of written words, this would be a false claim, since the Dharma is apart from written words entirely. It is for this reason, Mahāmati, that I, and every buddha, and every bodhisattva, have never spoken a single word, nor answered with a single word. Why is this? Because the Dharma is apart from written words entirely — though this is not to say that teaching for the sake of benefit and meaning never occurs; it is only that [ordinary] speech itself arises out of sentient beings' own false thought. Mahāmati, were nothing at all to be taught concerning any dharma, the entire system of teaching would collapse. And were the system of teaching to collapse, there would be no buddhas, no bodhisattvas, no pratyekabuddhas, and no śrāvakas left at all — and, were there none of these, who would there be to teach, and for whom? It is for this reason, Mahāmati, that a bodhisattva-mahāsattva should not become attached to speech itself, but should teach the scriptures widely, through skillful means suited to each occasion. Because sentient beings' own hopes and afflictions are not all the same, I, and every buddha, teach every dharma to those very beings, each understanding it differently, precisely so as to free them from mind, will, and consciousness — not for the sake of reaching the very domain of self-realized noble wisdom [through speech itself].
The commentators are precise about the specific confusion this passage targets, distinguishing two senses of "meaning" a careless reader easily collapses into one: "義有能詮文字之義、有所詮道理之義，癡人迷於道理，言文字之義如所言說，謂義之所說無有異也" — "there is the meaning that belongs to the words doing the expressing, and there is the meaning of the principle actually being expressed by them; the foolish, confused about the principle itself, take the meaning of the words to be identical with what is said, holding that there is no difference between meaning and its expression at all." The fault is not believing that speech has meaning — it plainly does — but collapsing the meaning into the words themselves, as though nothing existed on the far side of the sentence once the sentence had been spoken.
On the sharp claim that no buddha has ever spoken "a single word," followed immediately by an equally firm insistence that teaching must continue, the commentators locate the resolution in what "speaking" actually names: "說即無說，若謂有說者，凡愚之妄想分別耳" — "to teach is precisely not-to-teach [in the fixed sense being denied]; to suppose there is 'teaching' in that fixed sense is nothing but the ignorant person's own false discrimination." And on why the system cannot simply fall silent to avoid the trap of fixed speech: "若有不說，則教法不立。教若不立，則大小乘機無修證之分，如是則孰為能度、孰為所度而建立機教哉" — "were nothing ever taught, the entire system of teaching could never be established at all. And were the system of teaching never established, neither the greater nor the lesser vehicle's own practitioners would have any basis for practice and verification — in which case, who would there be to deliver anyone, and who would there be to be delivered, for any teaching to be established for at all?" The apparent contradiction dissolves once "not speaking" is understood as freedom from fixed, self-standing speech, not as literal silence — a buddha teaches constantly, while never once mistaking the words for the thing they point toward.
Relying on Meaning, Not on Words
大慧！於一切法無所有，覺自心現量，離二妄想。諸菩薩摩訶薩依於義，不依文字。若善男子、善女人依文字者，自壞第一義，亦不能覺他。墮惡見相續而為眾說，不善了知一切法、一切地、一切相，亦不知章句。若善一切法、一切地、一切相，通達章句，具足性義，彼則能以正無相樂而自娛樂，平等大乘建立眾生。大慧！攝受大乘者，則攝受諸佛、菩薩、緣覺、聲聞。攝受諸佛、菩薩、緣覺、聲聞者，則攝受一切眾生。攝受一切眾生者，則攝受正法。攝受正法者，則佛種不斷。佛種不斷者，則能了知得殊勝入處。知得殊勝入處，菩薩摩訶薩，常得化生，建立大乘。十自在力，現眾色像。通達眾生形類悕望煩惱諸相，如實說法。如實者，不異。如實者，不來不去相，一切虛偽息。是名如實。大慧！善男子、善女人，不應攝受隨說計著；真實者，離文字故。大慧！如為愚夫以指指物，愚夫觀指，不得實義。如是愚夫，隨言說指，攝受計著，至竟不捨，終不能得離言說指第一實義。大慧！譬如嬰兒，應食熟食，不應食生。若食生者，則令發狂。不知次第方便熟故。大慧！如是不生不滅，不方便修，則為不善。是故應當善修方便，莫隨言說，如視指端。是故，大慧！於真實義，當方便修。真實義者，微妙寂靜，是涅槃因。言說者，妄想合。妄想者，集生死。大慧！實義者，從多聞者得。大慧！多聞者，謂善於義，非善言說。善義者，不隨一切外道經論，身自不隨，亦不令他隨，是則名曰大德多聞。是故欲求義者，當親近多聞，所謂善義者，當親近多聞，所謂善義。與此相違，計著言說，應當遠離。」
Mahāmati, with respect to every dharma, there is nothing at all — becoming aware that this is the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation, one is apart from both kinds of false thought. Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas rely on meaning, not on written words. If a good man or good woman relies on written words instead, he destroys ultimate meaning for himself, and is unable to awaken anyone else either — falling, instead, into a continuous stream of evil views while teaching others, without properly understanding any dharma, any ground, or any mark, nor knowing the sections and passages of the teaching either. If, instead, one properly understands every dharma, every ground, and every mark, penetrating every section and passage, and is fully complete in own-nature and meaning both, then one is able to take genuine delight in the markless itself, establishing sentient beings within the equality of the Mahāyāna. Mahāmati, one who embraces the Mahāyāna thereby embraces every buddha, bodhisattva, pratyekabuddha, and śrāvaka. One who embraces these thereby embraces every sentient being. One who embraces every sentient being thereby embraces the true Dharma. One who embraces the true Dharma thereby ensures the seed of buddhahood is never cut off. One in whom the seed of buddhahood is never cut off is able to fully understand the supreme point of entry. Knowing this supreme point of entry, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva constantly attains birth by transformation, establishing the Mahāyāna. With mastery over the ten powers, he manifests every kind of form, penetrating the manifold shapes, hopes, and afflictions of sentient beings, and teaches the Dharma exactly as it really is. "As it really is" means: not different [from case to case]. "As it really is" means: the mark of neither coming nor going, every falsehood put entirely to rest — this is what is meant by "as it really is." Mahāmati, a good man or good woman should not embrace and become attached to whatever happens to be said; what is genuinely real is apart from written words entirely. Mahāmati, it is like pointing at something for the sake of an ignorant person, using one's finger: the ignorant person looks only at the finger, and never grasps the real meaning at all. Just so, the ignorant, following after the finger of speech, embrace it and become attached to it, never once letting go, and, in the end, are never able to grasp the ultimate, real meaning apart from that finger of speech. Mahāmati, it is like a newborn child, who should eat only cooked food, never raw — should he eat raw food, it would drive him to madness, since he does not yet know the proper sequence and skillful means of cooking. Mahāmati, just so, cultivating 'unborn and unceasing' without skillful means is itself unwholesome. One should therefore skillfully cultivate the proper means, never following mere speech, the way one stares only at a fingertip. It is for this reason, Mahāmati, that one should cultivate ultimate meaning through skillful means. Ultimate meaning is subtle, wondrous, and utterly still — it is the cause of nirvāṇa. Speech, by contrast, is bound up with false thought; and false thought is what gathers together birth-and-death. Mahāmati, ultimate meaning is attained through one who has heard much. Mahāmati, one who has heard much is one skilled in meaning, not merely one skilled in speech. Being skilled in meaning means not following any outsider scripture or treatise — neither following it oneself, nor causing another to follow it — and this alone is what is called truly virtuous and widely learned. It is for this reason that one who seeks meaning should draw close to those who have heard much — that is, to those skilled in meaning; one should draw close to such skill in meaning. Whatever runs contrary to this, attached merely to speech, should be kept far away."
The commentators trace a chain of six successive dependencies through this passage's own structure, each embracing the one before it: "攝受大乘者，則攝受諸佛、菩薩...攝受正法者，則佛種不斷" — "one who embraces the Mahāyāna thereby embraces every buddha and bodhisattva... one who embraces the true Dharma thereby ensures the seed of buddhahood is never cut off" — a single chain running from the Mahāyāna itself, through every level of the sangha, to every sentient being, to the true Dharma, and finally to the perpetuation of buddhahood across time. The commentators read this chain as showing that relying on meaning rather than mere words is not a private meditative achievement but the very thing that keeps the entire tradition alive across generations — a teacher attached only to words cannot actually transmit what needs transmitting, and the chain breaks at exactly that point.
On the finger-and-moon parable — though the sūtra's own wording here speaks simply of "pointing at something," the commentators elsewhere in this collection gloss the same image explicitly as pointing at the moon — the point being made is sharpened by the newborn-child simile that follows immediately after it: "不知次第方便熟故" — "[the child falls ill] because he does not yet know the proper sequence and skillful means by which food is cooked." Just as a child must be given food prepared through a proper process rather than raw ingredients themselves, "unborn and unceasing" cannot simply be handed to a hearer as a bare doctrine without the skillful means that make it digestible — attempting to consume the teaching "raw," without the graduated preparation the rest of this sūtra has spent four fascicles providing, "則為不善" ("is itself unwholesome"), just as raw food sickens an infant not yet able to digest it.
Part 36 Complete
This closes Part 36: the collapse of meaning into mere speech identified as the root confusion behind so much mistaken doctrine, the resolution of why every buddha both "never speaks a single word" and teaches constantly, the six-link chain running from embracing the Mahāyāna to the perpetuation of buddhahood itself, and the parable of the pointing finger paired with a newborn child who must be given cooked food, not raw. Part 37 turns to a challenge from the outsiders themselves: if the Buddha's own "unborn" is no different from what they have always taught, what exactly makes the Buddha's teaching special at all — a question that leads directly into one of this sūtra's longest and most demanding verses, tracing the entire chain of dependent origination link by link.
Continue to Part 37 — Is the Buddha's "Unborn" Any Different from the Outsiders' Own? →